Those three are not ranked, as they played most (if not all) of their career before the 1950 cutoff date, but all three would rank in the Top 20 if their pre-1950 stats were included.

Its pretty interesting, and obviously no list is 100% accurate, and there are going to be people who disagree, with any list, but i thought he did a good job with it.

Oh and he gives a description on each QB also if you go to the site.

ps:

The Rankings

Today, we're going to look at the most valuable quarterbacks since 1950. For every QB, I added up their career PAR totals, which served as a starting point, and I then added bonus points for postseason success, including Super Bowl wins, NFL or AFL Championship Game victories, and (least of all) Super Bowl losses. Of course, I didn't slavishly follow the resulting list when formulating my Top 100, but the results do factor heavily into my final list of the top quarterbacks since 1950. Now, to the rankings!

(Note: The stats on this page have been normalized to 2006's environment, and all seasons -- including the strike year in 1982 -- were pro-rated to a 16-game schedule. For instance, I know that Johnny Unitas did not throw for more than 4,000 yards in 1957, but his 2,550 yards that year are equivalent to 4,339 in 2006. For more information about PAR and the other advanced stats below, go here. Also, credit for the database is due to Doug Drinen and the great folks at Pro-Football-Reference. You guys rock!)

His method for adjusting stats is pretty dumb. Stats are stats for a reason, they are facts, its what really happened, you don't use multipliers and factors to adjust them and claim them as stats. The whole method is pretty dumb.

You can't claim a certain QB would throw X amount of TDs in todays game due to this or that, he didn't do it back then so you can't claim he'd do it today.

His method for adjusting stats is pretty dumb. Stats are stats for a reason, they are facts, its what really happened, you don't use multipliers and factors to adjust them and claim them as stats. The whole method is pretty dumb.

You can't claim a certain QB would throw X amount of TDs in todays game due to this or that, he didn't do it back then so you can't claim he'd do it today.

Well using stats as a sole justification for anything is dumb, just like you can't assume QB X would have thrown 40 TD's were he playing in 2006, you can't assume QB Y is better then him because he did, despite playing in a much better era for passers, with more games, and more developed offenses. Which is why stats should be minimal in justification of rankings like these.

But in terms of extrapolating, adjusting, and doing whatever else he had to do with those stats, he sure as hell put in a lot of work to do it, even if its wrong.

Maybe somebody can explain to me why Aaron Brooks and Jake Plummer are on this list.

#97: Aaron Brooks - Brooksie's career as a viable starter is most likely over after last year's debacle in Oakland, but for a time, he was a pretty decent QB who could run and pass a little. Admittedly, his best seasons (2001-2004) look better on paper than they did in real life, but even Football Outsiders saw his 2003 as being very good. And they hate Aaron Brooks!

#91: Jake Plummer - Jake The Snake's 1999 season with Arizona is the second-worst quarterbacking season since 1950. It's actually amazing that he was able to bounce back from it to become a pretty good starter later in his career.

Where is Otto Graham? He is undisputedly one of the top 10, maybe even top 5 QBs of all time. He only played in 10 straight championship games. It's not like Graham didn't play in the 1950s, and that is where the "modern era" should start. They should've made the cutoff date farther back than the 60s.

Johnny U is the only answer to the question of who's number 1? He revolutionized the position and the game as well. Without his success in those formative years the QB position wouldn't be where its at today. He gets the nod not only for his stats, which were incredible in his time, but also for changing the position and being one the greatest field generals ever.

__________________Magical sig by OSUGiants

SSAEL....... its a new revolution!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Job

On another note, Nicklas Backstrom is amazingly good.

Quote:

Meanwhile, in hockey the other night, the Washington Capitals' Eric Belanger gets hit with a stick, loses EIGHT teeth, has an instant root canal in the locker room, comes back out and PLAYS and never says boo.

So new rule, NBA: Unless you have a root canal at halftime, SHUT UP AND PLAY!

Wow, just wow. That is one of the worst lists I have seen in some time. Brunell in front of Esiason, Simms, Kelly, and others. Aaron Brooks being on the list. I don't want to sound like a homer, but wouldn't you all agree that Bulger should be ahead of Brooks on something like this, I mean wow. I know this guy was trying to equate different eras, but when he started using his formula and the rankings started coming out so crazy, he should have tried to fine tune the system.